Written By:
notices and features - Date published:
5:30 pm, May 9th, 2025 - 30 comments
Categories: Daily review -
Tags:
Daily review is also your post.
This provides Standardistas the opportunity to review events of the day.
The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).
Don’t forget to be kind to each other …
Who knew? NZ women's worst enemy isn't men in dresses, it's women in dresses.
actually, it's the patriarchy. But what are you on about?
Just a guess; maybe Muttonbird was thinking along these lines:
not sure that's what Incog meant, but sure, the patriarchy lets some women have power, because that suits it purposes, in this case it's easier to sell capitalism that treats women as collateral if women front the policy.
Likewise transrights. When both trans people and women become a problem, they get put in their place (ref the US).
Not so sure about calling Nat women NZ women's worse enemy, when men still hold most of the power in the party.
Incognito ( in yesterday’s OM) appears to be saying that "female MPs of the coalition parties", by commending and/or voting for the Equal Pay Amendment Bill, aren't acting in the best interests of many Kiwi women. Muttonbird @1 and @1.1.3 is arguably saying something similar [point taken re 'worst'], although I wonder if all female MPs who voted in favour really had to be "press-ganged."
Indeed, the comments / voting habits of some female MPs might suggest those MPs can be, on occasion, simpatico with patriarchal psychology – "You cannot deduce the psychological characteristics of any person by knowing their sex."
Consider the contrasting views of four women during the bill's third reading, starting with "MP in charge" van Velden. Warning: contains dire rationalisations of support for this setback to equal pay for women, a reset that will help 'our' self-serving finance minister Nicola 'No Boats' Willis deliver her second austerity fudget. That's austerity for the many, not the moneyed, imho.
Afaik, National MPs weren't free to vote based on their personal or constituent preferences, but had to follow Caucus. Blaming women for what National just did, is a reflection of one's own politics. This is one of the reasons women are so politicised around self ID. We see it for the door it is to allow left wing men to practice sexism and misogyny.
Muttonbird blamed women. Incognito asked how the women MPs would feel about not having pay parity. Those are two different things. It's legitimate to explore why women in the National Party are doing what they are doing, and part of that is acknowledging they don't value women. I also think there is a massive class aspect to this.
Simply blaming women (twice if you think about) is stupid, and part of the problem.
Yes – that's what I'm wondering about too – the actions of National and ACT MPs (as individuals), and the interactions between class and psychology.
I didn't get the sense Muttonbird was commenting on all, or even most women, rather on the actions of the female MPs Incognito listed, but I've been wrong before.
Anyway, Micky has another post up now.
https://thestandard.org.nz/the-beginning-of-the-end/
They weren't commenting on all women, but they were specifying women as being women's worst enemy. Do you think that is true?
No, not their worst enemy.
Just wondering about the psychology of "female MPs of the coalition parties" not acting in the best interests of many Kiwi women, and the idea that all those MPs had to be "press-ganged" by the patriarchy.
just so you know, sometimes your communication gets lost in all the links and formatting.
MB made the assertion that they were press-ganged by patriarchy into fronting, but MB's analysis lacks nuance and understanding imo.
People act and react individually even where there is social conditioning and societal coercion. Were they coerced or did they want to do this? Who knows, maybe both. Maybe it's more clear from what they've said and how in the past week (I haven't been watching).
I'm more interested in the systems analysis than blaming individual women. Except where individual women make a career out of it. eg Shipley and Richardson. But even there, they're part of a system that says women can advance but only if they play by the boys' rules.
Marilyn Waring started off as a National MP and become one of NZ' leading feminists over her whole career. She chose to not play the boys' game and left politics to remain a feminist.
A long time ago I heard her speak about women MPs and she said that those of that time (this was the 90s) started in parliament with goals for advancing women. Those get eroded over time. The higher you go the less you can stick to your principles.
Imo, the ones that can't tolerate the bullshit get out. But that means the women that are there are willing to pay the price. In other words, the system creates the kind of Nat women MPs we have, as well as the party's ethics and world view and those of the individuals.
As I said, I haven't been following the current lot, so don't have a sense of them.
My point of course is that there are far bigger monsters out there for working women, teachers, nurses, caregivers, cleaners than transgender women.
But parts of this government gleefully demonise one vulnerable part of society for votes while other parts steal $10B from women and their families, fronted by experienced National Party women as a way to protect wealthy men's incomes.
Many female journalists have said way more pointed things than me in the last few days. There's some real concern out there from people who are actually paying attention.
It's ridiculous to imagine the patriarchy advocates for transgender dignity. That is simply false and recent political posturing is proof of that. The patriarchy advocates for limiting women's pay to what men like to afford, that is clear after the events of this terrible week. The patriarchy have press-ganged their women into fronting this.
It's very sad that some women of the left are confused about what I said. It's fairly obvious to most. The right win when lefties undermine themselves…
I'm interested in the distillation of political communication, memes win elections, etc. That's the intent of my comment.
putting aside the trans stuff for a minute, you seem to be saying something quite interesting. I'm not sure it is obvious to most. I didn't see the news today, so it was hard to know what you were referring to. If you want to speak to wider than the choir, sharing your thinking goes a long way.
"The right win when lefties undermine themselves…"
It's also strengthened when lefties take shots at others over their personal politics when we need to unite.
The left have to unite over the big issues to win the treasury benches again.
Tl,dr: It cost me money when you took a break from routinely denying life saving care.
/
A group of investors sued UnitedHealthcare Group on Wednesday, accusing the company of misleading them after the killing of its CEO, Brian Thompson.
The lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, which seeks class action status, accuses the health insurance company of not initially adjusting its 2025 net earnings outlook to factor in how Thompson's killing would affect its operations.
[…]
The investors described that as “materially false and misleading,” pointing to the immense public scrutiny the company and the broader health insurance industry experienced in the wake of Thompson's killing.
The group, which seeks unspecified damages, argues that the public backlash prevented the company from pursuing "the aggressive, anti-consumer tactics that it would need to achieve" its earnings goals.
"As such, the Company was deliberately reckless in doubling down on its previously issued guidance," the suit reads.
https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/unitedhealthcare-sued-shareholders-reaction-ceos-killing-rcna205550
Classic FAFO.
/
@AP4Liberty
I'm voting for Donald Trump for the economy. And to own the libs.
2:59 AM · Jul 2, 2024 from Jefferson City, MO
https://x.com/AP4Liberty/status/1807791253695668572
@AP4Liberty
Well there went my shoe business. I don't understand why the tariffs have to eliminate the de minimis exemption. Why does government punish small businesses in this country knowing full well that Nike and all the big brands will be fine paying the taxes but Steffi and I get wiped out?
11:32 AM · May 9, 2025
https://x.com/AP4Liberty/status/1920622874181681541
·
Guess he didn't realise that "liberty" includes liberty for big guys to shaft little ones whenever it suits 'em. Silly sod.
So, there is a plan to ban under 16 yr olds from social media.
Brilliant! While they are at it they should ban poverty too.
Apparently "Christopher Luxon said on Tuesday the draft law would force social media companies …."
How is that going to happen? Are we going to write a stern letter? With a turnover of $164B for Meta alone, the letter better be on flash paper.
I can't help but feel this came out of a drawer full of shit ideas that get folk talking about 'other' issues, distracting them from where our focus should be.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/560261/why-banning-social-media-for-nzers-under-16-is-a-bad-idea-and-will-affect-adults-too
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/may/06/new-zealand-pm-luxon-social-media-ban-children
here ya go, I had a post mostly written, so have finished it and put it up
https://thestandard.org.nz/the-social-media-ban/
Chur.
I've got some additional material on how nation states can force SM companies to do things, if you bring that argument over to the post some time.
Easier thing to do would be to require a Multi National Corporation Revenue tax.
instead of taxing their miniscule profits at 28% or whatever it is, after they repay a “loan” to their parent “company” based in an overseas jurisdiction, simply require any MNC that makes revenue in NZ to pay a % of that revenue as tax.
it could even be progressive revenue! First $5million at 5%, $30million at 7%, $1bn at 10%
NZ would get far more tax receipts if it taxed revenue and not MNC profit.
I don't sense a will from successive governments to do meaningful tax reform, blue or red hued ones.
I should rephrase my comment to ask how does that get implemented?
Would it bring banks into a position where they could contribute more tax?
Yes gsays,once again. The bull fight.
The cape… ban 16 year olds using social media.
The sword… Seymour's Regulation Bill.
All NZ has to do is copy the Australian legislation which comes into effect at the end of this year. Does exactly that.
It's a relatively small step after banning all cellphone use at school.
And no they're not banning YouTube because it is a regular teaching resource.
Labour should Join in on this.
You don't answer the question how does the government force social media companies to do anything?
Farrar watch:
Two of NZ's chief Zionists David Farrar and Juliet Moses of course have an issue with the following quote;
Rest of the Kiwiblog post is deliberately conflating different issues (Modi and Hindus) and distancing himself from the Israeli government.
How convenient.
The one good point he did inadvertently raise is that Jewish families (note the separation) might be hurt by the backlash. Well, if they are forced to consider Netanyahu's policy then that is only a good thing. Worldwide Jewish sentiment might finally bring about change in Israel.